revision of price/cost competitiveness indicators for...

MONETARY POLICY & THE ECONOMY Q2/13 93

Revision of Price/Cost Competitiveness Indicators for Austria

The issue of short-term competitiveness, i.e. price and cost competitiveness, has moved to center stage in the economic policy debate amid the economic crisis. Within the Eurosystem, the various indicators that are used to monitor short-term competitiveness are revised at regular intervals by the ECB and national compilers. In Austria, these indicators are compiled by the OeNB in cooperation with WIFO, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research. The regular revisions are meant to ensure that the indicators adequately reflect changing country-specific trade patterns, remain useful measures and continue to be internationally comparable. In the revision undertaken in 2013, the basic conceptual framework was left unchanged in as much as the typical building blocks of the Austrian competitiveness indicator have been retained. At the same time, a number of adjustments were made: The previously fixed country weights were replaced by variable weights based on non-overlapping three-year periods, the underlying samples of trading partners and competing countries were adjusted, a services subindex was substituted for the existing travel and tourism subindex, and two new competi-tiveness indicators were added to enable cross-checks with the traditional consumer price-based measures. The two additions are, first, a new price competitiveness indicator for the manufacturing industry, based on relative producer prices and second, a new cost competitiveness indicator for the Austrian economy and the services industry, based on relative unit labor costs of the total economy. The revised set of indicators shows that Austria’s price and cost com-petitiveness has improved continually over the past decade and a half, with manufacturing exporters experiencing stronger gains in competitiveness than other areas of the economy. Services providers have also become evidently more competitive since the beginning of 1999. Here, the improvement is found to be larger when we take into account changes in the HICP/CPI rather than total unit labor costs.

JEL classification: F3, F4Keywords: effective exchange rates, price/cost competitiveness, (harmonized) competitiveness indicators, manufacturing sector, services sector, trade weights, third-market effects

Walpurga Köhler-Töglhofer, Christa Magerl1

1 Short-Term Price Competitiveness – A Prominent Measure in the Debate on Macroeconomic Imbalances1

Benefiting from rising cross-border demand for goods but increasingly also for services, Austria has consistently run current account surpluses since 2002. The growing importance of ser-vices exports is not limited to classical travel and tourism exports but has also been fueled by the growing demand for knowledge-intensive services. Mean-while, other euro area countries expe-rienced rising current account deficits following their accession to monetary union until the onset of the global financial and economic crisis. Following

the outbreak of the crisis, current ac-count imbalances, in particular imbal-ances among euro area countries, their causes and rebalancing measures that may be required moved to center stage in the economic debate. Such imbalances had been identified before the crisis hit, but they did not figure prominently in debates about economic policy. How-ever, persistent increases in current account deficits are ultimately not sus-tainable, not even in a monetary union.

The diverging external trade perfor-mance of the euro area countries re-flects, among other things, disparate developments of productivity, inflation, capital costs as well as labor costs – in other words, different changes in the

Refereed by: Peter Mooslechner, OeNB.

1 Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung, [email protected]; Austrian Institute of Economic Research, [email protected].


94 MONETARY POLICY & THE ECONOMY Q2/13

short-term price and/or cost competi-tiveness of the individual countries. The divergent trade performance also results from the inability of the export industries to adjust fast enough to changes in demand patterns and globalization. Despite sweeping EU initiatives like the Lisbon 2010 agenda, policymakers paid too little attention to factors that have a fundamental influence on the in-fundamental influence on the in-fundamentalternational competitiveness of an econ-omy, such as education, research or an economy’s capacity for innovation. Like a country’s tax system and its supply of public goods, its human capital port-folio (i.e. skills and knowledge), labor relations, the flexibility of labor markets and employment protection systems are key factors that define a country’s attractiveness as a business location and its competitiveness in the medium to long term. Still, in the short run, com-petitiveness basically burns down to the price competitiveness of the external sector, which is driven by relative price changes reflecting the development of labor and capital costs, productivitygains or losses, and exchange rate changes.

To prevent the buildup of unsus-tainable current account imbalances in the future, the EU has developed a new alert mechanism for identifying and correcting macroeconomic imbalances. As this framework has been designed to pay particular attention to the devel-opment of competitiveness, the EU’s scoreboard of macroeconomic indica-tors contains, among others, two indi-cators to measure short-term price/cost competitiveness and changes in market shares.

The usual approach to assessing the short-term (price and cost) competi-tiveness of a country is to analyze how its exchange rates and its domestic price

and cost indices have changed in rela-tion to those of its trading partners. From a macro perspective it is the ag-gregate effect on an economy of all ex-change rate changes that counts rather than the bilateral changes of parity. Therefore, an index calculated as the geometric weighted average of bilateral exchange rates – the nominal effective exchange rate index of a currency, say the euro – is a much more meaningful indi-cator of the economic impact of ex-change rate changes than bilateral ex-change rates. However, the nominal ef-fective index shows only how the external value of a currency moves on average in relation to the currencies of a given country’s trading partners. Thus, this index is useful mostly from a monetary policy perspective, for in-stance for assessing the effects of a de-preciating or appreciating currency on the domestic inflation rate. Likewise, the national nominal effective competi-tiveness indices will show whether an appreciating or depreciating euro has had different effects on the individual euro area countries, taking into ac-count country-specific differences in foreign trade patterns and the degree of openness of the economy.

However, it takes more than the nominal effective exchange rate index to arrive at a comprehensive assessment of the short-term price or cost compet-itiveness of a given economy. For this purpose, policymakers rely on real effective exchange rate indices, which are better suited to reflect changes in the competitiveness of producers on both home and external markets. Ideally, these indicators will relate to those areas where an economy faces inter-national competition,2 will adequately reflect country-specific trade patterns, and will build on reliable and inter-

2 In other words, these indices must cover all internationally tradable goods and – ideally – services.



nationally comparable price and cost indices (Köhler-Töglhofer, 1999).

As an aggregate price/cost indicator for the euro area, the ECB’s real effec-tive exchange rate indices of the euro by definition mask differences in the price/cost competitiveness of individual euro area countries. Yet from a national perspective, such differences are a major yardstick for the performance of the individual member countries.3 This is why national price/cost competitiveness indicators (i.e. national real effective ex-change rate indices) have been calculated on the basis of a harmonized methodol-ogy and have been published for the individual euro area countries since 1999. All these indices are revised at regular intervals to keep reflecting trade relationships adequately.

The latest revision of the OeNB/WIFO price and cost competitiveness indicators for Austria in 2013 involved, first, adjusting/updating the list of the trading partners and competing coun-tries and thus recalculating the individ-ual country weights. Second, the set of indicators was also adjusted slightly. The existing indicator for the cost com-petitiveness of the Austrian manufactur-ing industry reflecting manufacturing unit labor costs was discontinued due to a lack of internationally comparable cost indices. To fill this gap, we now offer a new index tracking the price competitiveness of the manufacturing industry as deflated by the producer price index. Moreover, total unit labor costs are now used – alongside the HICP/CPI, as before – to measure the competitiveness of the total economy. The basic conceptual framework was left

unchanged, though: the Austrian com-petitiveness indicator continues to con-sist of four subindices, but a subindex for services was substituted for the ex-isting subindex for travel and tourism.

Section 2 below presents the major changes resulting from the 2013 revision of the price competitiveness indicator, addressing, among other things, the informative value of the respective de-flators. Section 3 provides a snapshot of the competitiveness of the Austrian economy based on the new and revised price and cost competitiveness indica-tors.

2 Revision of the Price Competitiveness Indicator for Austria

The euro area countries committed themselves in 1999 to use a harmonized methodology for calculating their na-tional competitiveness indicators and to revise the indicators at regular intervals to catch up with changes in trade patterns. Past releases of the price com-petitiveness index for Austria have been consistent with the harmonized Euro-system methodology. The basic concep-tual framework was left unchanged in the revision of 2013 in as much as the typical building blocks (see Hahn et al., 2001) have been retained except that the travel and tourism index was replaced by a services index. The com-petitiveness indicator compiled by the OeNB and WIFO can be characterized as follows:• The aggregate index consists of four

subindices calculated for manufactured goods, food, raw materials and energy products, and services.4

3 See ECB (2000, 2003), Buldorini et al. (2002) and Schmitz et al. (2012) on calculating the nominal and real effective exchange rate indices for the euro.

4 The country weights for the subindices for manufactured goods, raw materials and energy products, and food are based on the trade flows documented in these categories in line with the Standard International Trade Classification(SITC): manufactured goods (SITC Sections 5 to 8), raw materials and energy products (SITC Sections 2 to 4) and food (SITC Sections 0 and 1).



• The index is based on geometric weighting, i.e. it represents the weighted geometric average of a bas-ket of bilateral exchange rates, which yields the price or cost competitive-ness indicator when adjusted for the respective relative price or cost indices.

• For the subindex for manufactured goods, the individual country weights continue to be calculated on the basis of single (bilateral) import and double (multilateral) export weights. While single (bilateral) export weights are easy to calculate and intuitive, they neglect third-market effects, i.e. the effect of competition domestic ex-porters face in third markets, which increases in importance with expan-ding trade ties. The method of choice to catch third-market effects is to use “double export weights,” as they cap-ture the effect of competition faced by Austrian exporters in foreign mar-kets from both domestic producers and exporters from third countries (depicted in competition matrices; see annex). The drawback of double export weights is that they are more difficult to calculate5 and less intui-tive.

• The index base period was left unchan-index base period was left unchan-index base periodged at the first-quarter average (arith-metic mean) of 1999 (i.e. 1999 Q1 =100), which is the base period esta-blished by the harmonized Euro-system framework.

2.1 Conceptual Changes and Adjustments to Changing Global Competition Patterns

2.1.1 Travel and Tourism Subindex Replaced by a Subindex for Services

During the 2013 revision of the OeNB/WIFO competitiveness indicator, the existing subindex for travel and tour-ism was replaced by a subindex for services. The country weights of the travel and tourism index corresponded to the weighted average of single (bilat-eral) import weights and double (multi-lateral) export weights, based on a competition matrix covering 30 coun-tries.6

The travel and tourism index was replaced by the wider services index because there is a lack of sufficiently comprehensive internationally compa-rable data. This conceptual change coincides with the changing role of Austria as a provider of cross-border services: While in the past, travel and tourism services were the staple export of Austria’s services industry, Austria is now exporting a broad range of state-of-the-art services. In recent years, innovative technology-based services (above all IT and information services and contract research; see Koller, 2012) have been accounting for increasing shares of Austrian services exports. In terms of revenue, the main services exports continue to be travel and tour-ism (2011: EUR 14.3 billion) and the

5 Double export weights are calculated on the basis of complex competition matrices. These matrices also track any goods sold on the domestic market that were manufactured domestically and thus compete with imports from other countries. See box 1 in Köhler-Töglhofer et al. (2006). While the ECB takes net manufacturing output (gross manufacturing output less intermediate consumption by manufacturers) as the starting point for building the competition matrix for manufactured goods, the OeNB/WIFO use gross manufacturing output. The rationale behind this approach is that the OeNB considers only gross manufacturing output to be consistent with the foreign trade statistics derived from gross flows. Moreover, intermediate goods and services affect competitiveness. All other calculation steps are the same for both indicators. Given that gross manufacturing output exceeds net manu-facturing output, the OeNB/WIFO indicator yields a higher share of domestic producers in a given market than the ECB indicator.

6 The competition matrix for travel and tourism covered all countries with a share of at least 0.25% of Austria’s travel and tourism revenues and expenditures (plus Finland and Luxembourg) as reported in the Austrian balance of payments.



traditional services industries, such as transportation, construction, wholesale and retail trade, operational leasing, agricultural and mining services (2011: EUR 15.6 billion). Exports of knowl-edge-intensive services,7 however, grew at a particularly impressive rate from the mid-1990s up to 2008, with aver-age annual growth rates of 13%. When exports collapsed in 2009 amid the global economic crisis, exports of knowledge-intensive services moreover proved to be fairly resilient to the crisis, dropping by just 6%, whereas goods exports suffered a 20% setback. Measured in terms of the absolute export revenues generated by knowl-edge-intensive business services, archi-tecture, engineering and other techni-cal services are the single most impor-tant category, followed by IT and information services (see Walter, 2011, p. 12). Reflecting the rising value added by services other than travel and tour-ism, a new subindex for services has been added to the Austrian competi-tiveness indicator. Given a lack of com-parable international data on the gross output of services, it is not (yet) possi-ble to calculate double export weights for the services subindex. The new ser-vices subindex reflects trade relations with Austria’s 56 most important trad-ing partners, who are also relevant for other subindices (see table A1 in the annex).

2.1.2 Fixed Country Weights Replaced by Variable Weights Based on Non-Overlapping Three-Year Periods

The Austrian competitiveness index used to be based on a fixed weighting system, consisting of single (bilateral) import weights, single (bilateral) ex-port weights for food as well as raw ma-terials and energy products, and double (multilateral) export weights for manu-factured goods, and travel and tourism. The underlying country weights were fixed over the entire calculation period starting from 1999 with the trade weights established during the succes-sive rounds of revision (three-year aver-ages for external trade shares).8

An important conceptual change of the revision undertaken in 2013 is that the fixedthe fixedthe country weights were dropped. fixed country weights were dropped. fixedInstead, the index is now calculated as a chained index.9 At the time of writing, the most current set of comparable ex-ternal trade data relates to the three-year period from 2007 to 2009. This leaves us with five sets of country weights based on successive three-year averages (1995 to 1997, 1998 to 2000, 2001 to 2003, 2004 to 2006 and 2007 to 2009). The effective exchange rate indices are obtained by chain-linking the indicators based on each of these five sets of trade weights at the end of each three-year period. The latest three-year period for which data could be compiled in 2013 determines the

7 Knowledge-intensive services include telecommunications services; IT and information services; R&D services; licensing fees for patents and know-how; architecture, engineering and other technical services; legal consultancy fees; accounting and tax advisory services; business consulting; advertising and market research; personal services; culture and recreation services.

8 The country weights established in the revision of 2001 related to the external trade patterns of the period from 1995 to 1997; the country weights established in the revision of 2006 were based on the three-year average for the period from 1999 to 2001.

9 In some respects, the existing price competitiveness index was already a chained index, as the index for the period up to 1999 remained based on the sample of trading partners and competing countries underlying the revision of 2001, for which the weights were calculated on the basis of the 1995 to 1997 period. This procedure was chosen because it ensured a more adequate reflection of Austria’s trade relations and thus of its competitiveness situation in the 1993 to 1998 period.



country weights for evaluating the price and cost competitiveness of Austria in the coming years, or until the next full three-year dataset becomes available.10

2.1.3 Changes in Country Coverage

To reflect changes in the pattern of Austrian exports, the sample of trading and competing countries was adjusted as well when the indicator was revised in 2013. The index is now based on a sample of 56 countries.11

An assessment of the changes in the country weights during the last decade and a half or so shows that the “ranking” of Austria’s main trading partners has in essence remained unchanged; at the same time, there have been slight changes in the relative importance of individual trading partners. Based on the weight-ing for the 2007 to 2009 period, the aggregate index (export- and import-

weighted across all subindices) continues to be characterized by a high foreign trade share of the countries that joined the EU before 2004 (56.9%), whereas the countries that acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007 account for a share of 12.5%. Germany remains the country with the largest country weight (33.3%), followed by the U.S.A. (9.1%) and Italy (7.6%). France and Switzerland each have a weight of some 3½%, and the Czech Republic and the Netherlands a weight of about 3% each. The high weight of the U.S.A. – i.e. of the U.S. dollar – results above all from the raw materials and energy products subindex, as imports in this category are mostly denominated in U.S. dollars (see table A1 in the annex).

The price competitiveness patterns evident from the revised aggregate in-dex broadly match that of the previous

10 The next update is due when the full dataset becomes available for the 2010 to 2012 period.11 Compared with the latest revision in 2006, the sample of trading partners and competing countries has been

reduced by 6 countries.

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1999 Q1 = 100

Nominal

110

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

90

1999 Q1 = 100

Real, deflated by the relative HICP/CPI

110

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

901997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Chained Aggregate Index of Austria’s Price Competiveness since 1997: Previous Index versus Revised Index

Chart 1

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

Previous index Revised index



%

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Single and Double Export Weights in the Manufactured Goods Subindex (Period 2007 to 2009)

Chart 2

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Gre

ece

Uni

ted

King

dom

Irela

nd Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Swed

en

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Hun

gary

Cyp

rus

Aus

tral

ia

Chi

le

42.72

23.9731.6531.65

%

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

Single export weights Double export weights Import weights

Icel

and

Israe

l

Japa

n

Can

ada

Mex

ico

New

Zea

land

Nor

way

Switz

erla

nd

Sout

h Ko

rea

Turk

ey

U.S

.A.

Bosn

ia a

nd H

erze

govi

na

Braz

il

Chi

na

Hon

g Ko

ng

Indi

a

Iran

Cro

atia

Mal

aysia

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

n

Saud

i Ara

bia

Serb

ia

Sing

apor

e

Sout

h A

fric

a

Taiw

an

Thai

land

Ukr

aine

Uni

ted

Ara

b Em

irate

s



index. The slight shift in the level since 2007 evidently reflects the adjustment of trade weights based on the external trade data for the three-year period from 2007 to 2009.

As outlined above, the export weights for the manufactured goods subindex are calculated as double exportweights reflecting third-market effects. An analysis of both double export weights and single export weights across the non-overlapping three-year periods produces some interesting insights: Germany’s weight has shrunk signifi-cantly over time. Similarly, the weights of Switzerland, Italy, Japan and the U.S.A. have gone down. Conversely, the weights of some of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007 (such as Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic or Romania) have increased markedly. Overall, China and the Rus-sian Federation stand out as the coun-tries whose relevance for Austrian man-ufacturing exporters reflects the largest increases (see table A3 in the annex).

With regard to the impact of for-eign competition on domestic industries in third markets, a cross-check of single and double export weights shows that in the case of Germany, Austria’s single most important trading partner, the direct export weight is markedly larger than the export weight that includes competition for domestic exporters in third markets. The same holds true for Switzerland and many of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 as well as for the Russian Federation (see chart 2). The reverse is the case for China, the U.S.A., Japan, Turkey and most of the Asian emerging markets (e.g. South Korea, India, Hong Kong, Singapore or

Taiwan). These emerging countries and their staple exports constitute ever stronger competition for domestic ex-porters in third markets. Conversely, countries whose double export weight is below their single export weight are not as much of a competition for do-mestic exporters in third markets. This may be because they are targeting dif-ferent regions with their exports, or because they export different goods and services. Germany, for instance, is the single most important export destina-tion for Austrian manufacturing ex-porters, but in third markets, German exports appear to be less of a competi-tion for Austrian exports.

In this evaluation of the short-term price competitiveness of Austrian man-ufactured goods exporters, the EU-27 aggregate now has a share of 65.8%. In other words, other EU countries con-tinue to account for the lion’s share of Austrian manufacturing exports; at the same time, this share has dropped by 8 percentage points in the last decade and a half. The weight of the euro area (now 51%) has also been decreasing. While exchange rate uncertainty has disappeared within the euro area, the 51% must not be misinterpreted as the share of Austrian exports that is no longer exposed to exchange rate risks. Competition in non-euro area mar-kets,12 as reflected by double export weights, causes bilateral exchange rate changes of the euro to other currencies to continue to exert an – indirect – influence on Austrian exports. Of course, the same holds true for Aus-tria’s competitors from other euro area countries. In addition, the competitive-ness of domestic exporters relative to

12 To give an example, the double export weights account for the competition between Austrian and German exports both in the German market and in all other euro area and non-euro area markets. In these non-euro area markets, exchange rate changes of the euro to the respective national currency matter for Austrian and German exporters alike.



those in other euro area countries also depends on the relative changes in cost and price levels.

The aggregate share of those EU countries that have not yet joined the euro area (14.8%) has remained broadly unchanged over time. Yet the aggregate masks a comparatively strong decline in the share of the United Kingdom and a rising importance of Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania for Austrian man-ufacturing exports. In addition, the weight of Switzerland has dropped markedly since the latter part of the 1990s, and so have the shares of the U.S.A. and Japan. Conversely, China has gained tremendous importance for domestic manufacturing exporters over the past 15 years. China’s country weight has risen from 1.7% (1998 to 2000) to 6.2% (2007 to 2009) and is now al-most on a par with that of the U.S.A., making China even more important for domestic manufacturing exporters than France, which is after all Austria’s third-largest export trading partner within the EU.

Compared with exports of manu-factured goods, domestic services ex-ports continue to be more focused on EU markets (close to 76%; euro area: 59%). Again, Germany is Austria’s sin-gle most important trading partner (with a share of 38.4%), followed by Switzerland (6.1%), Italy (5.5%), the United Kingdom (4.6%) and the Netherlands (4.4%).

In the subindices for raw materials and energy, food and services, the U.S.A. stands out. Its share appears to be astonishingly high at a first glance, because, in addition to the underlying imports and exports, corresponding imports and exports to and from coun-

tries not specified in the index13 are billed in U.S. dollars and hence add to the weight of the U.S.A./the U.S. dollar.

2.2 Two New Competitiveness Indicators Added to Enhance Analysis

In the past, the measure indicating the Austrian economy’s price competitive-ness was based on an HICP/CPI deflator. The HICP/CPI deflator is the most widely used method for calculating real effective exchange rate indices and na-tional competitiveness indicators. This method has its merits but also comes with some drawbacks: The key advan-tages are the timely availability and the timely availability and the timely availabilityinternational comparability of data, which international comparability of data, which international comparabilityare derived from standardized baskets of goods reflecting average living stan-dards.

Yet the goods baskets underlying consumer price indices contain large amounts of nontradable goods,14 which makes them an imperfect proxy for changes in tradable goods prices. At the same time, consumer prices may be “misleading indicators of the prices of traded goods” (Lafrance et al., 1998), as the exposed and protected sectors of an economy tend to have divergent pro-ductivity patterns. Moreover, HICP/CPI-deflated measures do not reflect changes in the prices of capital goods (which account for a large share of foreign trade), whereas import prices have a significant influence on the development of the HICP/CPI. Finally, the meaningfulness of the indicator may be distorted by indirect taxes on goods that are reimbursed upon export (unless goods are acquired directly by foreign households) and by export sub-sidies.

13 Rest of the world.14 In the Austrian HICP, nontradable goods and services have a weight of 45%.



To provide a more robust assessment of the competitiveness of Austrian man-ufacturers, a new index was added when the set of competitiveness indica-tors was last revised in 2006 to show how competitive the Austrian manufac-turing industry is in terms of unit labor costs in the manufacturing sector. Unit labor costs are, without doubt, a key determinant of manufactured goods sales prices and thus a key indicator of the short-term competitiveness of an economy. In view of the limited avail-ability of internationally comparable data on manufacturing unit labor costs, the index was calculated for a compara-tively narrow sample of competing countries and trading partners.15 The data were derived from the OECD, which stopped updating the calculation of comparable unit labor costs for the manufacturing sector in 2012, how-ever. Therefore, retaining the cost competitiveness indicator introduced in 2006 was not an option.

As a second-best solution, a new index of manufacturing price competi-tiveness based on producer prices was added when the set of competitiveness indicators was revised during the 2013 update. The rationale for using pro-ducer prices as a deflator is to take a deflator that is more relevant for trad-able goods than the HICP/CPI. While producer prices reflect both products that sell well internationally and prod-ucts that are marketed less successfully abroad, producer prices can be assumed to relate above all to internationally active industries, as they cover mainly

manufactured goods and intermediate goods used in the manufacturing pro-cess. Hence, producer prices are con-sidered to be a “reasonable proxy for tradable goods prices” (Schmitz et al., 2012).16 At the same time, producer price indices are characterized by country-specific differences in composition and compilation (Schmitz et al., 2012). The prices observed are factory sales prices excluding VAT, adjusted for discounts or rebates and excluding transportation costs: “Output producer prices can be described as indices designed to mea-sure the average change in the price of goods and services as they leave the place of production valued at basis prices. They exclude any taxes, transport and trade margins that the purchaser may have to pay.” (OECD, 2010, p. 90). Since internationally comparable producer prices are not available for all relevant trading partners of Austria, the new in-dex is based on only 26 competing countries.17 Whereas consumer price indices are released monthly, deflators for analyzing cost competitiveness, such as total unit labor costs and producer price indices, are available only on a quarterly basis and are, moreover, sub-ject to longer publication time lags.

The other new addition is an indi-cator of cost competitiveness based on total unit labor costs. Unlike in the past, the new indicator of cost competi-tiveness added during the 2013 revision does not relate to the manufacturing industry, but to the total economy and to services. As discussed in Köhler-Töglhofer (1999), the use of total unit

15 Comparable data on manufacturing unit labor cost developments were available only for the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Hence, the sample of competing countries and trading partners used for this indicator consisted of 24 countries (based on OECD membership in 2006, excluding Denmark, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and Turkey). Those countries covered 85% of all relevant exports from Austria, though.

16 This assessment excludes nonindustrial goods, retail goods and services.17 France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Finland, Greece, the Czech

Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the U.S.A., New Zealand and Chile.



labor costs as a deflator is fraught with crucial drawbacks, as total unit labor costs also reflect changes in labor costs and in the productivity of the nontrad-able sector of production. If we assume that labor costs for nontradable costs and personal services rise faster than labor costs in the tradable sector, cost competitiveness indicators based on such deflators must be subject to a certain bias. To the extent that nontradable goods or services constitute intermedi-ate inputs to the products ultimately marketed by exporters, though, they exert a significant influence on com-petitiveness. Moreover, the use of unit labor costs as deflators, be it for manu-facturing industries or for the total economy, is subject to methodological problems, such as the fact that these costs are sensitive to the business cycle. Unit labor costs are calculated by dividing the (hourly) compensation per employee by the (hourly) real value added per person employed in the manu facturing industry or in the total economy. Empirical evidence shows that labor productivity grows in boom phases but drops in economic down-turns;18 in other words, labor produc-tivity follows the business cycle.19 Fur-thermore, the transition from labor- intensive to capital-intensive production methods also reduces the usefulness of the cost competitiveness indicator. If labor productivity growth results from the substitution of capital for labor and

if declining unit labor costs go hand in hand with rising capital unit costs, the cost competitiveness indicator overstates the competitiveness gains. Another methodological problem consists in the fact that productivity growth as such is endogenous and that strong productiv-ity gains need not necessarily imply an improvement in competitiveness, but may also imply that competitiveness problems existed in the first place.20

The countries at the southern periphery of the euro area are a case in point. Their price competitiveness has im-proved simply on account of the fact that staff layoffs caused the productivity measures of those countries to improve for manufacturing and for the total economy. Since internationally compa-rable total unit labor costs are not avail-able for all relevant trading partners of Austria, the new index is based on only 29 competing countries.21 These 29 countries, however, account for more than 85% of Austria’s foreign trade in goods and services.

3 What Do the Various Price Competitiveness Indicators Say?

3.1 Marked Price Competitiveness Gains for Austrian Manufacturers since the Launch of the Euro

Following the establishment of the Euro-pean monetary union in January 1999, domestic manufacturing exporters’ price competitiveness improved by 6% in real

18 Productivity decreases during pronounced economic setbacks or recessions. As a case in point, a quarterly analysis of productivity data for Austria shows five successive quarters of declining productivity for the total economy and four successive quarters of declining productivity for manufacturing in the crisis period 2008/09. The decline in manufacturing output was the driving force behind the development of total productivity.

19 Consequently, unit labor costs will rise during economic downturns and drop during economic upswings. There-fore, an adequate assessment of changes in cost competitiveness requires these changes to be adjusted for cyclical components.

20 When excessive wage increases make jobs unprofitable, layoffs or business closures cause jobs – typically those with the highest unit labor costs – to be destroyed. As a result, productivity will rise and unit labor costs will decline.

21 France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Finland, Greece, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Australia,Canada, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, the U.S.A., South Korea, New Zealand and Israel.



terms up to the end of 2012, judging from the export-weighted competitive-ness index as deflated by HICP/CPI. Taking into account also the underlying nominal effective appreciation by 3.7%, the relative improvement that is attrib-utable solely to changes in price pat-terns was in fact close to 10%. A cross-check with the competitiveness indica-tor that is based on the producer price index confirms this uptrend. This indi-cator dropped by almost 8% in the period from the first quarter of 1999 up to the fourth quarter of 2012; here, ½ percentage point of the improvement can be traced to the underlying nomi-nal effective depreciation.22

Based on the HICP/CPI-deflated competitiveness indicator, Austrian manufacturing exporters became more competitive in terms of prices by a measure of close to 9% from early 1999 until June 2001. In this respect, they benefited from the exchange rate move-ments of the euro against the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen, which contrib-uted to the nominal effective deprecia-tion observed in this period (5%). Hence, it does not come as a surprise that domestic manufacturing exporters be-came more competitive especially rela-tive to the U.S.A. and Japan in relation to which the real depreciation totaled almost 30% and 15%, respectively. While domestic manufacturing export-ers made little headway in becoming more competitive in intra-euro area trade (about 1%), they experienced sub-stantial price competitiveness gains compared with those EU countries which have not yet introduced the euro. Again, about 45% of the improvement was attributable to the underlying nomi-nal exchange rate movements. However, relative to the U.S.A., the exchange rate

movements accounted for the entire improvement, and for most of the improvement relative to Japan.

All the price competitiveness gains domestic manufacturing exports made from mid-2001 onward were reversed until the end of 2004 on account of exchange rate changes, with the euro firming against the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen and the pound sterling. While domestic exporters continued to improve their competitiveness against their euro area trading partners by a small margin, they lost competitiveness against all other destinations. However, part of the negative impact of the exchange rate developments relative to the non-euro area EU countries did not feed through to price competitiveness. The opposite was the case with Japan, where the strong exchange rate-related losses were accompanied by an even stronger loss of price competitiveness.

In the course of 2005, the tides turned again: domestic exporters re-gained almost 5% in price competitive-ness, mostly on account of the underly-ing exchange rate movements, which were in turn largely attributable to the appreciating U.S. dollar. The improve-ment was only temporary. It was offset entirely between late 2005 and April 2008, again essentially as a result of exchange rate fluctuations (while the euro appreciated strongly against the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen, it depreciated somewhat against the cur-rencies of the non-euro area EU coun-tries). Relative to Japan, the setback that Austrian exporters suffered in their price competitiveness was much sharper than the exchange rate-related fluctuations would have suggested. Against all other destinations, domestic producers managed to partly offset the

22 The divergence in the movements of the nominal effective exchange rate index is the result of diverging country samples and corresponding changes in the country weights.



strong exchange rate-related losses thanks to comparatively more favorable HICP/CPI developments. The period until November 2008 saw another im-provement, which was followed by yet another offsetting movement in the fol-lowing months; in both cases, the un-derlying exchange rate movements were the driving force.

Starting in September 2009, Aus-trian manufacturers managed to regain competitiveness relative to their com-petitors until mid-2010, based on a real effective depreciation by 5½%, which was driven by a broadly corresponding nominal effective depreciation. In the course of the global economic crisis, the euro depreciated sharply against the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen and the currencies of the non-EU countries. Some of this improvement was lost again in the following months, up to April 2011, but the loss was subsequently reversed in the period until August 2012. A regional breakdown shows that the sharp depreciation of the euro against the Japanese yen in the period from mid-2010 until the end of 2012

did not fully feed through to the real effective index. In the case of all other regions, the development of the real effective index was driven by nominal exchange rate changes. Finally, in the period from mid-2010 until the end of 2012, domestic manufacturers also lost the competitiveness gains they had made relative to their fellow euro area coun-tries following the establishment of monetary union.

As measured by the HICP/CPI- deflated index, the price competitive-ness of Austrian manufacturing export-ers has been essentially determined by the changes in the nominal effective exchange rate index since mid-2001, and in particular since the onset of the global financial crisis, i.e. the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

The story told by the HICP/CPI-deflated price competitiveness index for the domestic manufacturing industry is confirmed by the new PPI-deflated index calculated for just 29 competing countries. This index reveals competi-tiveness gains for Austrian manufactur-ing exporters in the range of about 7%

1999 Q1 = 100

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

701997 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 201119991998 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 20122000

Export-Weighted Real Effective Exchange Rate Index for Manufactured Goods (Deflated by HICP/CPI) by Destinations

Chart 3

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

Euro area Non-euro area EU countries U.S.A. Japan Other countries Total



for the first three years following the establishment of monetary union, 4 per-centage points of which were found to be attributable to the underlying nomi-nal effective depreciation. The subse-quent years were characterized by a steady (exchange rate-driven) real effec-tive appreciation, which lasted until the first quarter of 2005 and was subse-quently reversed until mid-2008. As the Austrian economy suffered a setback following the global financial crisis, the Austrian manufacturing industry tem-porarily (from the third quarter of 2008 to the end of 2009) lost more than 4% in price competitiveness. Half of this loss was attributable to the compara-tively stronger increase of domestic producer prices. It took domestic man-ufacturers until the first quarter of 2012 to reverse these losses, largely supported by a nominal effective depreciation.

As measured by the (export-weighted only) price competitiveness index deflated by producer prices, do-mestic manufacturing exporters gained in competitiveness relative to their trad-ing partners by a measure of 8% from early 1999 to late 2012; the nominal ef-fective depreciation amounted to about ½% in this period.

3.2 Progressive Price and Cost Competitiveness Gains for Austrian Producers and Services Providers since Early 1999

As deflated by total unit labor costs, the (export-weighted as well as import- and export-weighted) index measuring the cost competitiveness of Austrian producers and services providers (ag-gregate index) shows competitiveness gains of 10% for the period from early 1999 until the first quarter of 2002, 40% of which were related to exchange rate developments. From the second quarter of 2002 until the first quarter of 2004, Austrian exporters suffered competitiveness losses, which were likewise driven by exchange rate devel-opments. This period was followed by slight improvements, which were only temporary, though. From the fourth quarter of 2004 until the end of 2009, Austrian exporters’ cost com-petitiveness fell by some 5%, mostly on account of labor cost developments, which developed less favorably in Austria than abroad. Since early 2010, Austrian producers and services pro-viders have regained some competitive-ness as a result of exchange rate devel-opments.

1999 Q1 = 100

102

100

98

96

94

92

90

881997

Export-Weighted Real Effective Exchange Rate Indices for Manufactured Goods

Chart 4

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

As measured by relative producer prices As measured by relative HICP/CPI

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



The international cost competitive-ness of Austrian producers and services providers improved by a total of 5% from the start of monetary union until the fall of 2012; 2 percentage points thereof can be attributed to the changes of the nominal effective exchange rate index. Yet this indicator may very well underestimate the competitiveness of Austrian producers and service provid-ers, as total unit labor costs are largely determined by nontradable, low-produc-tivity services.

When cross-checking these figures with the HICP/CPI-deflated price com-petitiveness indicator with the cost competitiveness indicator, we see that the results do not fully match. Deflated by the HICP/CPI, the aggregate index shows price competitiveness to have improved by 7% in the first three years of monetary union, with almost half of the improvement attributable to exchange rate changes. The subsequent nominal effective appreciation by about 8% observed until the first quarter of 2004 did not feed through entirely to price competitiveness. This period was followed by (largely exchange rate -related) price competitiveness gains

until the first quarter 2006, which were, however, almost fully reversed until the end of 2009. When we look at the period from early 2004 until late 2009, we find Austrian exporters to have experienced marginal gains in price competitiveness despite the underlying nominal effective appreciation. This pattern is not consistent with the pat-tern reflected by the cost competitive-ness indicator. The cost competitiveness indicator implies that the Austrian econ-omy lost about 3% in competitiveness in this period, with half of the loss being driven by exchange rate devel-opments. For the period from late 2009 until late 2012, the price competitive-ness indicator and the cost competitive-ness indicator coincide in showing a 3% recovery of competitiveness, albeit almost entirely on account of exchange rate movements. Finally, when we look at the entire period from early 1999 until late 2012 and cross-check the HICP/CPI-deflated indicator with the unit labor cost-deflated indicator, we also arrive at price competitiveness gains totaling 5%, of which only a small part was determined by exchange rate developments.

1999 Q1 = 100

102

100

98

96

94

92

90

881997

Real Effective Exchange Rate Indices (Aggregate Indicator)

Chart 5

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

As measured by relative unit labor costs As measured by relative HICP/CPI

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



3.3 Austrian Services Providers Made Stronger Gains in Price Competitiveness than in Cost Competitiveness

When we look at the (export- and import-weighted) indices designed to reflect the cost competitiveness of services providers on the basis of total unit labor costs23 we also find competi-tiveness gains in the first few years following the launch of the euro. Until the first quarter of 2002, the figures add up to a real effective depreciation of 11%, supported by a nominal effec-tive depreciation of about 5%. In other words, domestic services providers benefited from more moderate wage policies and/or higher productivity gains. This compares with a real depre-ciation of 7% as measured by the relative changes of consumer prices, with half of the improvement observed on the basis of this indicator being attributable to exchange rate develop-ments. For the next two years, both the index based on unit labor costs and the index based on HICP/CPI show a reversal of these gains, in both cases entirely on account of exchange rate developments. Up to the end of 2005, the two indicators coincide in showing renewed slight gains, roughly half of which were driven by exchange rate changes. The subsequent years, how-ever, brought marked setbacks, in particular with regard to cost competi-tiveness. Exchange rate changes played some role in this respect, but the main driver was a comparatively sharp rise in unit labor costs. Cross-checking these results with the HICP/CPI- deflated competitiveness index, we find the loss of price competitiveness of ser-vices providers to have been triggered entirely by exchange rate changes until April 2008, the pass-through of which

to the real effective measures was lim-ited, though. The slight improvement observed in the subsequent months on the basis of the HICP/CPI-deflated competitiveness index was, however, reversed once more as a result of the global crisis until the end of 2009.

The long-term patterns imply that domestic services providers made stron-ger gains in competitiveness in terms of total unit labor costs than they did in terms of consumer prices from early 1999 to early 2002. Yet they subse-quently lost the competitive edge im-plied by the cost competitiveness indicator over the price competitiveness indicator until the end of 2009. When we look at the competitiveness gains during the entire period from early 1999 to late 2009, the results of the two indicators are more or less the same. But the matching headline results mask highly divergent underlying nominal effective exchange movements that result from the fact that the two indica-tors are based on different country samples and hence on different country weights. The nominal effective appre-ciation totaled 7% in the case of the price competitiveness indicator but only some 3% in the case of the cost com-petitiveness indicator. This implies that Austrian services providers benefited more strongly from changes in relative consumer prices than they did from changes in relative unit labor costs.

Since early 2010 until the fall of 2012, domestic services providers again experienced small gains in cost and price competitiveness as a result of exchange rate changes. However, given a comparatively stronger increase in unit labor costs and a comparatively stronger increase in HCPI/CPI inflation, the exchange rate changes did not suffice to offset the earlier losses.

23 This indicator is based on 29 competing countries.



Over the full length of the review period – from early 1999 until late 2012 – domestic services providers were able to increase their price com-petitiveness by 6%. Given an underly-ing nominal effective appreciation of 3%, this improvement was not driven by exchange rate changes. A regional breakdown shows that Austrian ser-vices providers failed to outperform providers from other euro area coun-tries in this period. Conversely, they gained significant ground in terms of price competitiveness relative to those EU countries which have not yet joined the euro area (13%), and they would have gained even more in the absence of adverse exchange rate developments. Supported by exchange rate develop-ments, they also visibly gained competi-tiveness vis-à-vis the U.S.A. (11%). Conversely, Austrian services providers suffered significant losses vis-à-vis Ja-pan (15%), benefiting at the same time from favorable exchange rate develop-ments without which the loss would even have been much stronger.

3.4 Total Unit Labor Costs in Austria in Comparison to its Trading Partners

Unit labor costs in the Austrian total economy as a whole remained broadly stable from early 1999 until late 2004, thus developing even more moderately than total unit labor costs in Germany, which grew by 3% in this period compared to 16% in Italy and 5% in Switzerland. Even stronger increases were observed in Luxembourg (+17%), the Netherlands (+17%), Spain (+16%), Greece (+20%), Portugal (+21%) and especially Ireland (+25%). In the U.S.A., unit labor costs rose by 11%, whereas they declined by 15% in Japan. Some of the countries that had joined the EU in 2004 also reported particu-larly high increases, such as Hungary (+55%), Slovakia (+35%) and the Czech Republic (+23%). Poland was an outlier with a decrease by 6%.

The story is different, to some extent, for the period from late 2004 until the third quarter of 2008 (when the global economic crisis was set off by the collapse of Lehman Brothers). In this period, total unit labor costs in Austria rose gradually by 7%, which was still moderate, though, compared

1999 Q1 = 100

102

100

98

96

94

92

90

881997

Real Effective Exchange Rate Indices for Services

Chart 6

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

As measured by relative unit labor costs As measured by relative HICP/CPI

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



with developments in other trading partner countries (the exception to this observation being Germany, because German unit labor costs decreased by some 2% in this period). Irish unit labor costs continued to rise by another 18% until the end of 2007, but shrank by 9% until the third quarter of 2008 after the real estate bubble burst. In Spain – which suffered a real estate bubble of its own – the increase in unit labor costs remained strong (+16%), but this was even topped by Greece (+18%). Strong unit labor cost in-creases were reported, again, for Hungary (+17%) and Slovakia (+10%) and now for Poland as well (+14%). Then there were a number of countries with increases of about 10%, namely France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom.

During the global economic crisis (from the third quarter of 2008 until the third quarter of 2012), the increase of unit labor costs was substantial and more or less on a par in Austria (+10%) and Germany (+9%). This can be ex-plained with the comparatively high wage increases agreed in wage negotia-

tions as well as with productivity losses resulting from the decline in economic output which went hand in hand with cuts in hours worked rather than sharp increases in layoffs. Those European countries which had built up compara-tively high macroeconomic imbalances and/or unsustainable current account deficits by the time the economic crisis hit simply had to significantly improve their unit labor cost positions. Thus, Spain, Portugal and Greece reduced their total unit labor costs by about 5% each from the third quarter of 2008 until the third quarter of 2012; Ireland cut its unit labor costs by about 13% from late 2007 until the third quarter of 2012.

When we look at the period from early 1999 until the third quarter of 2012, total unit labor costs rose by 19% in Austria – compared with 10% for Germany, 35% for Italy, and some 30% each for France and Belgium. The Netherlands were affected to roughly the same degree, with an increase of about 33%. Those countries that were hit particularly hard by the global crisis plus, in some countries, the bursting

1999 Q1 = 100

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

1999 Q1 = 100

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

International Comparison of Total Unit Labor Costs (in Local Currencies)

Chart 7

Source: OeNB/WIFO.

France LuxembourgBelgiumGermany Austria

Netherlands Italy PortugalIrelandFinland Austria

Spain

19971997 19971999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011



of a real estate bubble – namely Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal – have seen their unit labor costs rise by between 25% and 33% since 1999. Not surprisingly, even stronger increases were reported for some of the coun-tries that joined the EU in 2004.

4 SummaryThe 2013 revision of the competitive-ness indicators for Austria shows that domestic manufacturers have become more competitive internationally since the launch of the euro. A cross-check of different indices illustrates that indices deflated by producer prices reflect more significant gains than indices deflated by consumer prices (in the case of the latter, the improvements are, moreover, largely exchange rate-driven). When interpreting the diverging results, two arguments need to be borne in mind: First, it is safe to assume that producer price indices are a better proxy for price changes in tradable goods than consumer price indices. This would imply that domestic goods exporters have experienced marked competitiveness gains since the start of monetary union. Second, it must not be overlooked that the two indicators are based on different country samples with different country weights.

Furthermore, the aggregate price and cost competitiveness indicators (i.e. the aggregate results of the four subindices) reflect short-term gains in competitiveness for Austrian manufac-turers and services providers from early 1999 until 2012, even if the improve-ments observed were not as strong for all economic areas as for the manufac-turing industry.

Domestic providers of services have also been able to improve their compet-itiveness since the start of monetary union. With respect to services, the indicator of price competitiveness shows significantly higher competitiveness gains than the indicator of cost competitive-ness, though. This becomes evident when we also take into account ex-change rate changes, as the price com-petitiveness indicator reflects competi-tiveness gains despite an underlying nominal effective appreciation. Con-versely, the improvement of cost com-petitiveness – as measured by the rela-tive total unit labor costs – was sup-ported somewhat by the underlying exchange rate changes. For Austria, we find total unit labor costs to have grown by 19% in the past 14 years. This is significantly below the corresponding results for Austria’s major trading part-ners except Germany.

ReferencesBuldorini, L., S. Makrydakis and C. Thimann. 2002. The effective exchange rates of the

euro. ECB Occasional Paper Series 2 (February).ECB. 2000. The nominal and real effective exchange rates of the euro. In: Monthly Bulletin. April.ECB. 2003. Developments in the euro area’s international cost and price competitiveness

In: Monthly Bulletin. August.Hahn, F., W. Köhler-Töglhofer, C. Magerl and P. Mooslechner. 2001. Updating the

Calculation of the Indicator for the Competitiveness of Austria‘s Economy In: Focus on Austria 2/2001. OeNB. 217–257.

Köhler-Töglhofer, W. 1999. Berechnung effektiver Wechselkursindizes als Indikatoren der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. In: Berichte und Studien 1/1999. OeNB. 104–128.



Köhler-Töglhofer, W., C. Magerl and P. Mooslechner. 2006. Revised and New Competi-tiveness Indicators for Austria Reflect Improvement Trend since EMU Accession. In: Monetary Policy & the Economy Q4/06. OeNB. 70–97.

Koller, C. 2012. Österreichs Außenhandel mit Dienstleistungen. In: Gnan, E. and R. Kronberger (Hrsg.). Schwerpunkt Außenwirtschaft 2011/2012, Entwicklung und Strategie in der Krise.87–96.

Lafrance, R., P. Osakwe and P. St-Amant. 1998. Evaluating Alternative Measures of the Real Effective Exchange Rate. Bank of Canada Working Paper 98-20. November.

OECD. 2010. OECD Factbook 2010. Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, Chapter on Producer Price Indices.

Schmitz, M., M. DeClercq, M. Fidora, B. Lauro and C. Pinheiro. 2012. The effective exchange rates of the euro. ECB Occasional Paper Series 134 (June).

Turner, P. and J. Van ’t dack. 1993. Measuring International Price and Cost Competitiveness. BIS Economic Papers 39.

Walter, E. 2011. Dienstleistungshandel Österreichs 1995 bis 2010, Technisches Know-How aus Österreich international gefragt. In: Statistiken – Daten & Analysen Q3/11. OeNB.



Appendix

Table A1

Weighting Scheme of the New Exchange Rate IndexCountry weights in %, calculated for the period from 2007 to 2009

Competing countries Austrian exports Austrian imports

Manu-factured goods1

Raw materials, energy products

Food Goods Services Total Manu-factured goods

Raw materials, materials, energy products

Food Goods Services Total

Belgium 3.04 0.25 0.98 2.73 1.86 2.49 1.79 0.68 1.77 1.62 1.37 1.57Bulgaria 0.38 0.68 0.61 0.41 0.55 0.45 0.29 0.04 0.16 0.24 0.72 0.34Denmark 0.70 0.22 0.48 0.66 0.78 0.69 0.48 0.12 0.84 0.45 0.37 0.43Germany 23.97 27.42 31.95 24.71 38.36 28.44 42.72 32.16 41.45 41.01 29.34 38.65Estonia 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.05Finland 0.79 0.03 0.22 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.25 0.05 0.51 0.69 0.55France 5.59 1.13 2.19 5.08 2.41 4.36 3.59 0.52 3.81 3.13 2.58 3.02Greece 0.41 0.44 0.91 0.44 0.46 0.45 0.10 0.07 0.66 0.14 1.55 0.42United Kingdom 3.57 0.96 1.73 3.28 4.56 3.63 2.16 0.22 0.88 1.78 4.98 2.42Ireland 0.69 0.05 0.19 0.62 0.51 0.59 0.54 0.03 0.85 0.49 0.68 0.52Italy 8.23 18.50 16.00 9.38 5.50 8.32 7.08 3.94 10.56 6.82 6.95 6.84Latvia 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.05Lithuania 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.27 0.09Luxembourg 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.15 0.40 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.58 0.23Malta 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.04Netherlands 2.64 0.75 2.65 2.53 4.43 3.04 2.72 1.97 6.05 2.82 2.52 2.76Poland 2.61 0.82 1.67 2.44 1.77 2.26 1.35 2.40 3.39 1.65 2.58 1.83Portugal 0.46 0.04 0.16 0.41 0.21 0.36 0.37 0.27 0.26 0.35 0.47 0.37Romania 1.15 1.04 1.79 1.19 1.69 1.32 0.72 0.29 0.25 0.63 1.53 0.81Sweden 1.44 0.17 0.87 1.33 1.48 1.37 1.44 0.43 0.20 1.21 0.96 1.16Slovakia 1.13 3.90 1.37 1.32 1.54 1.38 1.64 4.31 1.10 2.02 2.84 2.18Slovenia 0.84 3.89 3.78 1.22 1.23 1.22 1.10 0.56 0.80 1.00 1.68 1.14Spain 2.99 0.34 1.60 2.73 1.03 2.27 1.63 0.25 3.43 1.53 1.97 1.62Czech Republic 2.86 6.31 2.99 3.08 2.29 2.87 3.31 4.54 2.43 3.44 3.48 3.45Hungary 1.85 6.55 3.67 2.26 3.31 2.55 2.21 3.58 4.04 2.54 4.15 2.86Cyprus 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.28 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.38 0.09Australia 0.51 0.16 0.66 0.50 0.29 0.44 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.29 0.11Chile 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.28 0.03 0.04 0.03Iceland 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.03Israel 0.26 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.01 0.22 0.09 0.00 0.07Japan 2.57 1.18 0.88 2.37 0.57 1.88 2.05 0.07 0.04 1.61 0.50 1.39Canada 0.78 0.01 0.34 0.70 0.32 0.60 0.45 0.07 0.07 0.36 0.42 0.37Mexico 0.56 0.01 0.17 0.50 0.11 0.39 0.19 0.03 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.15New Zealand 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.05 0.13 0.06Norway 0.50 0.03 0.16 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.19 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.46 0.22Switzerland 2.55 3.12 3.35 2.64 6.10 3.58 4.25 0.83 3.33 3.67 4.27 3.79South Korea 1.68 0.03 0.59 1.51 0.29 1.18 0.65 0.08 0.01 0.52 0.14 0.44Turkey 1.35 0.10 0.30 1.20 0.74 1.08 0.86 0.18 1.27 0.78 1.39 0.90U.S.A. 6.82 18.52 9.09 7.70 8.59 7.94 6.11 37.14 5.39 10.85 8.84 10.45Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.14 0.18 0.54 0.17 0.29 0.21 0.19 0.24 0.04 0.19 0.23 0.20Brazil 0.88 0.01 0.30 0.79 0.14 0.61 0.18 0.22 1.72 0.29 0.26 0.28China 6.16 0.23 0.10 5.39 0.78 4.13 4.99 0.26 0.88 3.99 0.89 3.37Hong Kong 0.81 0.02 0.10 0.72 0.25 0.59 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.54 0.21India 0.96 0.04 0.07 0.84 0.29 0.69 0.43 0.04 0.34 0.37 0.42 0.38Iran 0.25 0.02 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.74 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.10Croatia 0.63 1.21 1.47 0.72 1.02 0.80 0.61 0.23 0.57 0.55 2.81 1.01Malaysia 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.06 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.02 0.23 0.10 0.20Russian Federation 2.22 0.32 2.37 2.12 1.97 2.08 0.31 1.13 0.07 0.42 2.38 0.82Saudi Arabia 0.22 0.10 0.38 0.22 0.00 0.16 0.02 1.09 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.14Serbia 0.32 0.23 0.73 0.34 0.69 0.44 0.22 0.14 0.62 0.23 0.51 0.29Singapore 0.72 0.00 0.07 0.63 0.11 0.49 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.16 0.11South Africa 0.57 0.01 0.40 0.52 0.14 0.42 0.10 0.25 0.40 0.14 0.53 0.22Taiwan 0.70 0.05 0.03 0.61 0.08 0.47 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.12 0.42Thailand 0.48 0.01 0.01 0.42 0.11 0.33 0.41 0.01 0.42 0.35 0.57 0.39Ukraine 0.62 0.37 0.65 0.61 0.63 0.61 0.21 0.13 0.28 0.20 0.76 0.32United Arab Emirates 0.31 0.22 0.37 0.31 0.00 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: OeNB/WIFO.1 Double weights.



Table A1 continued

Weighting Scheme of the New Exchange Rate IndexCountry weights in %, calculated for the period from 2007 to 2009

Competing countries Exports and imports

Manu-factured goods

Raw materials, energy products

Food Goods Services Total

Belgium 2.43 0.56 1.38 2.16 1.66 2.04Bulgaria 0.34 0.22 0.39 0.33 0.62 0.40Denmark 0.59 0.15 0.66 0.55 0.61 0.57Germany 33.00 30.84 36.72 33.01 34.68 33.35Estonia 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.14 0.07Finland 0.70 0.19 0.13 0.61 0.70 0.63France 4.63 0.69 3.01 4.09 2.48 3.71Greece 0.26 0.18 0.79 0.29 0.90 0.43United Kingdom 2.89 0.43 1.30 2.52 4.73 3.05Ireland 0.62 0.04 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.56Italy 7.67 8.00 13.27 8.08 6.09 7.61Latvia 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.07Lithuania 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.11Luxembourg 0.17 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.47 0.22Malta 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.04Netherlands 2.68 1.63 4.36 2.68 3.65 2.91Poland 2.00 1.96 2.54 2.03 2.10 2.05Portugal 0.42 0.21 0.21 0.38 0.32 0.37Romania 0.95 0.50 1.02 0.90 1.62 1.08Sweden 1.44 0.36 0.53 1.26 1.27 1.27Slovakia 1.38 4.20 1.23 1.67 2.07 1.77Slovenia 0.96 1.49 2.28 1.11 1.41 1.18Spain 2.33 0.27 2.52 2.12 1.42 1.96Czech Republic 3.08 5.04 2.71 3.27 2.78 3.15Hungary 2.02 4.41 3.86 2.40 3.65 2.70Cyprus 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.32 0.09Australia 0.29 0.11 0.39 0.28 0.29 0.28Chile 0.07 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.07Iceland 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.03Israel 0.18 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.13Japan 2.32 0.38 0.46 1.98 0.54 1.64Canada 0.62 0.05 0.20 0.53 0.36 0.49Mexico 0.38 0.02 0.13 0.32 0.11 0.27New Zealand 0.05 0.01 0.22 0.05 0.08 0.06Norway 0.35 0.02 0.15 0.30 0.44 0.34Switzerland 3.37 1.47 3.34 3.16 5.35 3.68South Korea 1.19 0.07 0.30 1.01 0.23 0.82Turkey 1.11 0.16 0.79 0.99 1.00 0.99U.S.A. 6.48 31.94 7.23 9.31 8.69 9.15Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.27 0.20Brazil 0.55 0.16 1.02 0.53 0.19 0.45China 5.60 0.25 0.49 4.68 0.82 3.76Hong Kong 0.50 0.01 0.05 0.41 0.37 0.40India 0.71 0.04 0.21 0.60 0.34 0.54Iran 0.13 0.54 0.06 0.17 0.00 0.13Croatia 0.62 0.50 1.01 0.63 1.75 0.90Malaysia 0.34 0.15 0.02 0.30 0.08 0.25Russian Federation 1.30 0.90 1.21 1.25 2.14 1.47Saudi Arabia 0.12 0.81 0.19 0.20 0.00 0.15Serbia 0.27 0.17 0.67 0.29 0.62 0.37Singapore 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.13 0.31South Africa 0.34 0.18 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.32Taiwan 0.66 0.02 0.02 0.55 0.10 0.44Thailand 0.45 0.01 0.22 0.38 0.30 0.36Ukraine 0.42 0.20 0.46 0.40 0.69 0.47United Arab Emirates 0.17 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.00 0.12Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: OeNB/WIFO.



Table A2

Competition Matrix for Manufactured Goods ExportsMarket shares in %; calculated for the period from 2007 to 2009

Competing countries Destinations

Bel-gium

Bul-garia

Den-mark

Ger-many

Estonia Finland France Greece United King-dom

Ireland Italy Latvia Lithua-nia

Luxem-bourg

Malta

Belgium 13.16 1.97 3.46 4.57 2.13 1.75 5.66 2.75 3.46 2.47 1.83 1.85 2.72 15.70 1.22Bulgaria 0.33 38.25 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.07 1.13 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.13Denmark 0.37 0.45 25.82 0.68 1.75 1.32 0.31 0.40 0.58 1.15 0.18 1.99 1.72 0.19 1.16Germany 18.53 10.26 17.97 54.16 12.82 7.77 10.95 8.84 10.06 6.53 6.76 12.07 12.35 16.34 5.37Estonia 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.03 18.52 1.08 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 5.61 2.11 0.01 0.01Finland 0.51 0.37 1.48 0.46 12.01 56.49 0.24 0.36 0.49 0.31 0.22 3.52 2.03 0.11 0.23France 9.60 2.74 3.31 4.21 2.06 1.70 53.69 4.03 4.19 2.94 3.34 1.86 2.74 6.90 8.23Greece 0.06 4.20 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.06 47.20 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.37United Kingdom 5.58 1.14 3.73 2.29 2.07 1.81 2.30 2.19 46.93 23.53 1.37 1.46 2.17 1.44 5.47Ireland 6.06 0.23 0.62 0.51 0.30 0.24 0.60 0.51 1.87 32.99 0.34 0.35 0.14 0.36 0.18Italy 3.95 7.84 3.23 3.46 3.39 1.59 4.90 8.71 2.88 1.89 69.94 3.26 4.18 2.11 9.25Latvia 0.02 0.03 0.25 0.03 5.93 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.01 23.22 4.64 0.01 0.02Lithuania 0.07 0.07 0.64 0.08 3.41 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.02 7.83 28.81 0.12 0.08Luxembourg 0.52 0.07 0.16 0.22 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.09 30.55 0.04Malta 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.24Netherlands 9.20 1.78 4.61 3.88 2.54 2.11 2.63 2.38 3.24 3.00 1.58 2.30 2.46 3.48 1.96Poland 1.10 1.58 2.37 2.09 4.65 0.67 0.87 0.66 1.01 0.44 0.85 6.30 8.32 0.91 0.21Portugal 0.32 0.10 0.33 0.38 0.13 0.09 0.52 0.15 0.29 0.24 0.13 0.16 0.07 0.21 0.18Romania 0.22 2.74 0.10 0.47 0.16 0.06 0.32 0.53 0.19 0.12 0.60 0.15 0.17 0.08 0.29Sweden 1.93 0.54 9.50 0.85 8.25 5.83 0.65 0.60 0.99 0.66 0.42 3.25 2.82 0.40 0.25Slovakia 0.36 1.06 0.59 0.79 0.42 0.36 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.12 0.34 1.03 0.63 0.15 0.08Slovenia 0.09 0.81 0.26 0.32 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.04 0.24 0.25 0.43 0.16 0.06Spain 1.94 1.23 1.48 1.44 0.85 0.52 3.95 2.58 1.85 1.12 1.57 0.73 0.92 1.09 1.96Czech Republic 1.10 2.00 1.10 2.33 1.34 0.53 0.68 0.46 0.78 0.34 0.52 1.60 1.90 0.61 0.26Hungary 0.44 2.69 0.70 1.46 0.76 0.29 0.41 0.42 0.53 0.41 0.38 1.06 1.01 0.32 0.08Cyprus 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.06Australia 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.18 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.06Chile 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02Iceland 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02Israel 1.16 0.19 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.27 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.45Japan 2.25 0.43 0.65 1.30 0.73 1.41 0.75 1.15 1.67 1.22 0.59 0.45 0.40 0.54 2.83Canada 0.57 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.08 0.73 0.42 0.11 0.25 0.18 0.58 0.29Mexico 0.21 0.04 0.09 0.26 0.02 0.26 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.19 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.02New Zealand 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04Norway 0.30 0.06 1.99 0.26 0.70 0.60 0.12 0.14 0.33 0.41 0.08 0.44 0.55 0.17 0.23Switzerland 1.10 0.99 1.25 2.16 0.60 0.65 1.40 1.49 1.14 0.79 1.25 1.52 0.64 0.97 1.50South Korea 0.86 0.52 0.51 0.67 0.62 1.05 0.35 2.26 0.71 0.74 0.34 0.83 0.49 0.08 18.38Turkey 0.51 5.85 0.93 0.67 1.16 0.19 0.60 1.83 0.91 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.96 0.19 7.92U.S.A. 7.44 0.91 2.42 2.79 1.36 1.78 2.26 1.72 4.86 8.14 1.04 2.04 2.64 3.40 1.86Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00Brazil 0.42 0.02 0.14 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.03China 4.08 3.08 5.30 3.34 4.06 4.60 2.17 3.78 4.27 4.00 2.18 5.26 4.27 11.36 11.81Hong Kong 0.66 0.21 0.91 0.72 0.87 0.79 0.45 0.31 1.19 0.40 0.40 0.65 0.30 0.35 0.34India 1.21 0.21 0.58 0.33 0.25 0.15 0.24 0.37 0.70 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.23 0.04 0.60Iran 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Croatia 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.03 2.51Malaysia 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.24 0.16 0.30 0.15 0.12 0.30 0.41 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.02 0.42Russian Federation 0.56 1.45 0.73 0.24 2.95 2.01 0.05 0.34 0.16 0.10 0.36 5.25 3.96 0.15 2.26Saudi Arabia 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.96Serbia 0.02 0.60 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.01Singapore 0.64 0.03 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.19 0.30 0.05 0.58 1.70 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.08 2.81South Africa 0.41 0.02 0.04 0.24 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.42 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.08Taiwan 0.34 0.51 0.65 0.48 0.77 0.47 0.35 0.29 0.60 0.83 0.24 0.34 0.36 0.19 0.79Thailand 0.46 0.08 0.51 0.16 0.31 0.29 0.14 0.29 0.33 0.46 0.13 0.17 0.48 0.05 0.15Ukraine 0.04 2.02 0.18 0.09 0.95 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.17 1.03 1.04 0.01 0.09United Arab Emirates 0.34 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.14Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Single export weights 1.56 0.63 0.68 29.61 0.10 0.54 3.81 0.54 3.34 0.25 6.36 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.03

Source: OeNB/WIFO.



Table A2 continued



Net-her-lands

Poland Portu-gal

Roma-nia

Swe-den

Slova-kia

Slove-nia

Spain Czech Repu-blic

Hun-gary

Cyprus Aus-tralia

Chile Iceland

Belgium 9.83 2.55 2.21 1.64 2.56 1.69 2.31 2.02 2.40 2.15 1.73 0.54 0.83 1.81Bulgaria 0.05 0.12 0.02 1.13 0.04 0.23 0.33 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.00 0.01 0.01Denmark 0.86 0.71 0.26 0.24 3.49 0.43 0.33 0.31 0.38 0.54 0.41 0.18 0.27 7.73Germany 18.34 18.16 8.65 12.27 11.02 17.89 17.45 7.84 21.52 20.99 7.55 2.74 3.93 10.83Estonia 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.39Finland 1.21 0.68 0.36 0.30 2.88 0.28 0.54 0.31 0.30 0.46 1.54 0.19 0.46 1.12France 4.53 3.45 5.30 4.42 3.03 4.58 5.72 5.90 2.88 3.80 2.69 1.20 1.68 1.63Greece 0.10 0.08 0.10 1.01 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.10 9.48 0.01 0.02 0.05United Kingdom 4.73 1.84 1.70 1.42 3.39 1.21 1.29 2.01 1.75 1.58 5.24 1.46 0.79 5.32Ireland 1.09 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.16 0.14 0.67 0.31 0.26 0.36 0.31 0.10 0.49Italy 2.96 5.20 4.57 9.10 2.14 4.31 13.74 4.11 3.27 4.56 8.02 1.12 1.62 2.42Latvia 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.61Lithuania 0.07 0.30 0.03 0.05 0.26 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.45Luxembourg 0.23 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.13Malta 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.08Netherlands 4.57 2.93 2.29 1.90 2.70 1.83 2.27 1.80 3.58 3.02 2.00 0.46 0.77 7.35Poland 1.45 42.50 0.46 2.23 1.88 4.46 1.62 0.57 4.41 3.79 1.12 0.07 0.08 1.26Portugal 0.30 0.14 47.46 0.27 0.18 0.13 0.11 1.55 0.16 0.18 0.29 0.02 0.18 0.11Romania 0.29 0.39 0.10 39.42 0.14 0.75 0.78 0.14 0.44 1.95 0.20 0.01 0.04 0.08Sweden 1.74 1.26 0.53 0.46 51.86 0.48 0.68 0.52 0.68 0.61 0.76 0.57 0.69 5.36Slovakia 0.57 1.41 0.20 1.32 0.45 22.90 1.61 0.25 4.23 3.05 0.44 0.04 0.10 0.11Slovenia 0.13 0.37 0.07 0.55 0.11 0.65 26.01 0.06 0.45 0.80 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.09Spain 1.59 1.25 16.14 1.55 0.82 1.04 2.07 62.00 1.16 1.29 2.36 0.40 2.11 1.46Czech Republic 1.40 2.85 0.41 2.05 1.00 14.80 2.24 0.48 38.18 3.46 0.39 0.07 0.11 0.64Hungary 0.72 1.41 0.39 4.48 0.41 6.01 2.41 0.42 2.11 25.83 0.31 0.06 0.03 0.26Cyprus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 14.01 0.00 0.00 0.01Australia 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 62.29 0.21 0.05Chile 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 39.06 0.00Iceland 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 34.00Israel 0.35 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.06 0.04 0.27 0.14 0.09 0.13 4.18 0.17 0.18 0.07Japan 5.06 0.74 0.63 0.40 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.66 1.67 2.40 4.63 4.24 3.34 1.73Canada 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.10 0.12 0.23 0.10 0.40 0.86 1.05Mexico 0.41 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.02 0.16 2.42 0.03New Zealand 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.99 0.06 0.02Norway 0.98 0.31 0.20 0.17 1.73 0.09 0.05 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.19 4.55Switzerland 1.52 0.84 0.85 0.96 0.71 0.84 1.27 0.98 1.07 1.09 0.63 0.58 0.43 0.46South Korea 0.89 1.77 0.39 0.89 0.38 5.61 2.27 0.46 0.62 1.88 10.17 1.31 3.47 0.57Turkey 0.68 0.59 0.45 4.05 0.35 0.44 2.11 0.56 0.40 0.67 4.83 0.07 0.17 0.17U.S.A. 8.31 1.15 1.51 0.73 1.89 0.67 0.79 1.18 0.75 1.34 1.17 5.70 14.59 4.47Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 1.30 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Brazil 0.94 0.08 0.42 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.16 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.18 5.97 0.02China 12.13 3.36 1.87 3.22 2.16 2.89 3.09 2.66 3.51 6.06 8.15 6.49 11.93 1.67Hong Kong 1.66 0.28 0.23 0.31 0.46 0.27 0.24 0.34 0.45 1.18 0.37 1.54 0.84 0.22India 0.72 0.18 0.35 0.42 0.23 0.07 0.46 0.31 0.12 0.33 0.53 0.36 0.69 0.27Iran 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00Croatia 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.10 2.66 0.01 0.07 0.17 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.01Malaysia 1.34 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.40 0.19 1.15 0.16 0.05Russian Federation 2.09 0.52 0.44 0.37 0.22 0.71 0.22 0.06 0.36 0.61 2.44 0.02 0.04 0.06Saudi Arabia 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01Serbia 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.36 0.01 0.24 1.31 0.01 0.07 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01Singapore 1.56 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.29 0.80 0.30 1.60 0.10 0.00South Africa 0.35 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.35 0.13 0.09Taiwan 0.89 0.52 0.13 0.22 0.37 1.89 0.47 0.30 0.83 1.85 0.37 0.83 0.69 0.49Thailand 0.95 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.19 0.24 0.08 0.14 0.45 0.38 0.33 1.80 0.50 0.11Ukraine 0.12 0.49 0.01 0.59 0.03 0.65 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.92 0.61 0.01 0.11 0.02United Arab Emirates 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.42 0.04 0.01 0.01Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Single export weights 1.66 2.67 0.38 1.91 1.13 1.75 1.77 2.56 3.39 3.04 0.06 0.65 0.09 0.02

Source: OeNB/WIFO.



Table A2 continued



Israel Japan Cana-da

Mexico New Zea-land

Nor-way

Swit-zer-land

South Korea

Turkey U.S.A. Bosnia and Herze-govina

Brazil China Hong Kong

India

Belgium 4.30 0.12 0.49 0.24 0.46 1.35 2.83 0.13 1.26 0.41 1.02 0.36 0.11 0.73 1.01Bulgaria 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.65 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01Denmark 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.30 4.04 0.37 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.23 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04Germany 4.86 0.72 1.45 2.03 2.38 7.72 23.70 1.25 5.84 1.84 12.79 1.82 1.16 1.64 1.52Estonia 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00Finland 0.27 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.17 1.95 0.35 0.08 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.09France 2.11 0.27 0.54 0.53 0.85 1.56 6.44 0.41 2.20 0.57 1.25 0.73 0.28 0.88 0.61Greece 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.39 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01United Kingdom 2.99 0.27 0.79 0.30 1.41 3.33 3.76 0.31 1.13 0.91 0.47 0.42 0.17 1.55 0.72Ireland 0.36 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.24 0.38 2.08 0.06 0.17 0.47 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.26 0.03Italy 2.99 0.23 0.50 0.72 1.09 1.61 8.76 0.37 2.72 0.53 10.04 0.70 0.23 1.23 0.59Latvia 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Lithuania 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02Luxembourg 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01Malta 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00Netherlands 2.00 0.11 0.22 0.20 0.48 2.77 2.49 0.30 1.26 0.28 1.33 0.21 0.10 0.33 0.26Poland 0.37 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.05 2.04 0.56 0.03 0.49 0.04 1.13 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03Portugal 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01Romania 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.13 0.01 0.53 0.01 1.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05Sweden 0.47 0.07 0.23 0.15 0.35 10.95 0.70 0.10 0.44 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.09 0.14 0.23Slovakia 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.27 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01Slovenia 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.06 0.01 9.76 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01Spain 1.24 0.05 0.14 0.71 0.31 0.70 1.62 0.06 1.23 0.15 0.64 0.32 0.06 0.17 0.15Czech Republic 0.52 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.50 1.01 0.03 0.24 0.05 2.13 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.09Hungary 0.37 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.45 0.03 0.39 0.04 2.73 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02Cyprus 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Australia 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.05 12.30 0.03 0.07 0.23 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.38 0.10Chile 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.37 0.16 0.03 0.01Iceland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Israel 39.04 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.57 0.07 0.34 0.37 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.98 0.27Japan 2.37 86.71 1.74 2.06 4.33 0.96 1.16 5.37 0.78 2.49 0.03 0.82 2.66 9.26 0.93Canada 0.50 0.09 49.24 0.78 0.64 0.31 0.37 0.12 0.11 3.63 0.05 0.22 0.11 0.25 0.17Mexico 0.10 0.04 1.05 56.46 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 3.40 0.01 0.46 0.03 0.07 0.06New Zealand 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 54.08 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01Norway 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.05 49.74 0.15 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07Switzerland 1.30 0.28 0.41 0.27 0.47 0.62 27.39 0.19 0.65 0.36 0.92 0.34 0.13 1.48 0.31South Korea 1.28 0.92 0.66 1.88 1.35 1.20 0.20 77.42 1.12 0.84 0.24 0.80 2.08 4.90 1.06Turkey 2.24 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.30 0.27 0.01 68.82 0.06 3.42 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05U.S.A. 15.69 1.88 35.67 26.24 4.94 2.11 5.50 2.65 1.27 74.23 0.30 4.21 1.17 5.18 2.04Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Brazil 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.85 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.04 83.04 0.06 0.10 0.08China 5.48 4.25 3.49 2.94 5.43 2.06 1.84 6.15 3.02 4.81 0.81 2.55 82.61 51.29 4.10Hong Kong 2.10 0.68 0.60 0.37 1.23 0.29 1.09 0.69 0.21 0.91 0.03 0.25 4.35 4.91 0.89India 2.00 0.06 0.20 0.13 0.40 0.21 0.32 0.14 0.43 0.38 0.06 0.22 0.08 1.83 80.01Iran 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.10Croatia 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 11.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Malaysia 0.00 0.39 0.14 0.30 1.14 0.08 0.09 0.28 0.17 0.43 0.01 0.09 0.29 2.00 0.36Russian Federation 0.63 0.10 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.31 1.97 0.11 1.35 0.10 0.12 0.23 0.12 0.04 0.49Saudi Arabia 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.15Serbia 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 10.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Singapore 0.67 0.54 0.39 0.29 1.89 0.06 0.31 1.22 0.09 0.46 0.00 0.24 0.64 6.92 1.21South Africa 0.67 0.24 0.06 0.03 0.20 0.05 0.85 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.12Taiwan 0.92 0.75 0.62 1.26 1.15 0.54 0.32 1.10 0.50 0.70 0.26 0.40 2.49 0.00 0.31Thailand 0.74 0.60 0.15 0.19 1.33 0.10 0.45 0.22 0.23 0.31 0.01 0.15 0.29 2.30 0.40Ukraine 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.83 0.02 0.81 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.11United Arab Emirates 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.31 1.10Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Single export weights 0.16 0.76 0.79 0.33 0.08 0.56 4.69 0.51 0.77 4.71 0.28 0.60 1.83 0.38 0.55

Source: OeNB/WIFO.



Table A2 continued


Competing countries Destinations Double export weights

Iran Croa-tia

Malay-sia

Russian Fede-ration

Saudi Arabia

Serbia Singa-pore

South Africa

Taiwan Thai-land

Ukra-ine

United Arab Emira-tes

Restof the world

Belgium 0.41 1.02 0.25 0.66 1.15 1.09 0.34 0.99 0.17 0.48 0.77 1.45 1.57 3.04Bulgaria 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.01 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.13 0.38Denmark 0.12 0.49 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.24 0.14 0.05 0.11 0.25 0.17 0.86 0.70Germany 4.44 12.95 3.19 6.57 5.99 10.67 3.55 6.30 1.87 1.85 7.40 5.49 11.41 23.97Estonia 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.07Finland 0.14 0.29 0.13 1.47 0.66 0.26 0.17 0.39 0.11 0.10 0.70 0.53 0.73 0.79France 1.99 1.88 1.20 1.41 2.58 1.92 2.65 1.40 0.51 0.82 1.21 2.91 4.88 5.59Greece 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.04 1.29 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.15 0.21 0.41United Kingdom 0.64 1.16 0.92 0.98 3.20 0.85 2.18 2.47 0.37 0.68 0.93 3.48 2.04 3.57Ireland 0.04 0.22 0.75 0.06 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.28 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.25 0.24 0.69Italy 2.65 11.98 0.60 2.26 3.71 8.10 1.08 1.24 0.37 0.73 2.75 3.82 4.96 8.23Latvia 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.07Lithuania 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.15 0.13Luxembourg 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.16Malta 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02Netherlands 0.46 1.80 0.36 1.12 1.43 1.91 1.05 1.09 0.57 0.52 1.41 1.49 1.79 2.64Poland 0.11 1.44 0.09 1.15 0.20 1.05 0.06 0.21 0.03 0.05 5.02 0.31 0.67 2.61Portugal 0.03 0.06 0.24 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.41 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.45 0.46Romania 0.14 0.23 0.01 0.14 0.04 1.72 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.44 0.12 0.30 1.15Sweden 0.44 0.68 0.29 0.56 0.89 0.85 0.46 0.65 0.11 0.21 0.59 0.36 0.81 1.44Slovakia 0.01 0.84 0.02 0.37 0.04 1.88 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.07 0.32 1.13Slovenia 0.06 6.65 0.01 0.18 0.02 4.87 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.32 0.04 0.28 0.84Spain 0.54 1.06 0.21 0.46 1.01 0.80 0.28 0.60 0.11 0.21 0.41 0.77 2.10 2.99Czech Republic 0.04 1.99 0.04 0.58 0.16 1.94 0.07 0.21 0.02 0.05 1.25 0.37 0.74 2.86Hungary 0.03 3.29 0.03 0.57 0.23 4.31 0.10 0.21 0.01 0.03 1.75 0.40 0.54 1.85Cyprus 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01Australia 0.06 0.01 0.80 0.01 0.92 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.51 0.95 0.01 0.50 0.53 0.51Chile 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.46 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.13Iceland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03Israel 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.12 0.25 0.13 0.02 0.42 0.26Japan 1.48 0.23 8.25 1.92 6.24 0.10 8.85 2.77 12.56 15.47 1.31 5.35 6.87 2.57Canada 0.11 0.20 0.30 0.15 0.42 0.05 0.35 0.31 0.18 0.22 0.11 0.42 0.63 0.78Mexico 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.06 1.27 0.56New Zealand 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.07Norway 0.03 0.25 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.55 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.23 0.50Switzerland 0.55 0.96 0.32 0.44 1.26 1.15 0.98 0.46 0.41 0.57 0.49 1.33 1.36 2.55South Korea 3.61 0.44 3.21 1.34 4.07 0.26 5.62 0.92 3.49 2.97 1.39 2.90 5.65 1.68Turkey 1.51 0.92 0.04 0.72 1.27 2.98 0.11 0.18 0.02 0.04 1.40 2.44 2.21 1.35U.S.A. 0.07 0.56 6.34 1.05 9.34 0.56 11.28 3.21 5.86 3.89 1.03 7.01 9.64 6.82Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.00 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.14Brazil 0.16 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.32 0.02 0.37 0.75 0.19 0.30 0.07 0.32 3.09 0.88China 7.30 5.54 11.46 4.77 8.57 1.98 14.81 5.37 7.04 8.14 6.26 12.62 15.11 6.16Hong Kong 0.09 0.18 1.89 0.17 0.48 0.12 3.24 0.52 2.01 2.32 0.21 1.70 1.54 0.81India 0.90 0.22 1.08 0.14 2.00 0.06 1.77 0.85 0.18 0.87 0.35 8.74 2.15 0.96Iran 61.63 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.31 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.23 0.43 0.25Croatia 0.00 37.71 0.00 0.03 0.01 2.45 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.63Malaysia 0.29 0.07 31.86 0.07 0.63 0.03 8.78 0.31 0.94 4.17 0.08 1.75 1.14 0.42Russian Federation 2.43 0.16 0.11 66.95 0.17 1.51 0.06 0.01 0.24 0.35 8.19 0.16 1.63 2.22Saudi Arabia 0.31 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.44 0.00 0.68 0.17 1.95 0.25 0.01 2.63 0.03 0.22Serbia 0.03 1.05 0.00 0.07 0.01 39.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.14 0.32Singapore 0.34 0.03 17.46 0.07 0.68 0.00 17.90 0.30 2.64 6.74 0.09 2.14 3.90 0.72South Africa 0.12 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.13 64.82 0.21 0.17 0.01 0.34 0.96 0.57Taiwan 0.00 0.46 3.93 0.25 0.40 0.26 6.38 0.64 55.64 3.34 0.17 0.67 0.01 0.70Thailand 0.52 0.08 3.81 0.08 1.40 0.01 3.33 0.72 0.71 42.41 0.13 1.46 2.13 0.48Ukraine 0.43 0.29 0.01 1.80 0.16 0.88 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.14 51.20 0.35 1.09 0.62United Arab Emirates 5.65 0.01 0.06 0.07 1.35 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.02 0.16 0.34 24.27 1.78 0.31Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Single export weights 0.32 1.25 0.27 2.48 0.44 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.22 0.17 0.68 0.49 6.46 100.00

Source: OeNB/WIFO.



Table A3

Comparison of the Weights for Manufactured Goods across Different Calculation Periods

1998 to 2000 2001 to 2003 2004 to 2006 2007 to 2009

Competing countries

Austrian exports (single weights)

Austrian exports (double weights)

Aus-trian im-ports

Total Austrian exports (single weights)


Aus-trian im-ports

Total Austrian exports (single weights)


Aus-trian im-ports

Total Austrian exports (single weights1)


Aus-trian im-ports

Total

%

Belgium 1.82 2.77 2.21 2.48 1.72 2.88 1.89 2.38 1.73 2.96 1.71 2.35 1.67 3.04 1.79 2.43Bulgaria 0.34 0.19 0.11 0.15 0.38 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.68 0.38 0.29 0.34Denmark 0.86 0.80 0.64 0.72 0.77 0.76 0.59 0.68 0.74 0.69 0.55 0.63 0.73 0.70 0.48 0.59Germany 36.82 29.95 43.28 36.86 33.43 27.23 42.28 34.85 31.93 25.25 43.07 33.89 31.65 23.97 42.72 33.00Estonia 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.05Finland 0.62 0.91 1.12 1.02 0.59 0.86 1.11 0.99 0.58 0.81 1.06 0.93 0.57 0.79 0.60 0.70France 4.75 6.61 5.22 5.89 4.69 6.52 4.23 5.36 4.12 5.87 4.17 5.04 4.07 5.59 3.59 4.63Greece 0.45 0.34 0.15 0.24 0.59 0.41 0.13 0.27 0.52 0.38 0.12 0.25 0.58 0.41 0.10 0.26United Kingdom 4.71 5.47 3.37 4.38 4.95 5.16 2.67 3.90 4.43 4.51 2.28 3.43 3.57 3.57 2.16 2.89Ireland 0.32 0.82 0.75 0.78 0.31 0.90 1.27 1.08 0.48 0.80 0.86 0.83 0.26 0.69 0.54 0.62Italy 6.85 8.74 7.80 8.25 6.93 8.83 7.22 8.02 7.15 8.60 7.07 7.85 6.80 8.23 7.08 7.67Latvia 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.05Lithuania 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.05 0.09Luxembourg 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.17Malta 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02Netherlands 2.45 2.40 2.95 2.68 2.26 2.46 2.78 2.62 1.83 2.52 2.74 2.62 1.78 2.64 2.72 2.68Poland 1.69 1.61 0.76 1.17 1.80 1.82 0.96 1.39 2.24 2.21 1.12 1.68 2.86 2.61 1.35 2.00Portugal 0.49 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.50 0.57 0.61 0.59 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.37 0.42Romania 0.68 0.50 0.42 0.46 1.24 0.69 0.74 0.72 1.79 0.96 0.94 0.95 2.04 1.15 0.72 0.95Sweden 1.22 1.58 1.49 1.53 1.12 1.44 1.42 1.43 1.10 1.42 1.46 1.44 1.21 1.44 1.44 1.44Slovakia 1.11 0.78 1.07 0.93 1.45 0.90 1.46 1.18 1.67 1.00 1.46 1.22 1.87 1.13 1.64 1.38Slovenia 1.68 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.74 0.98 1.19 1.09 1.79 0.89 1.19 1.04 1.90 0.84 1.10 0.96Spain 3.06 3.15 1.41 2.25 2.87 3.15 1.53 2.33 2.99 3.15 1.57 2.38 2.73 2.99 1.63 2.33Czech Republic 2.78 2.14 2.13 2.14 3.12 2.39 2.72 2.56 3.22 2.63 3.11 2.86 3.63 2.86 3.31 3.08Hungary 4.93 2.50 3.02 2.77 4.46 2.22 3.24 2.74 3.62 1.93 2.38 2.15 3.25 1.85 2.21 2.02Cyprus 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02Australia 0.50 0.41 0.03 0.22 0.54 0.44 0.05 0.24 0.67 0.52 0.07 0.30 0.70 0.51 0.06 0.29Chile 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.01 0.07Iceland 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02Israel 0.23 0.29 0.15 0.22 0.17 0.26 0.12 0.19 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.16 0.18 0.26 0.09 0.18Japan 1.03 3.14 2.97 3.05 1.02 2.88 2.66 2.77 1.07 2.87 2.52 2.70 0.82 2.57 2.05 2.32Canada 0.76 0.68 0.55 0.61 0.85 0.78 0.47 0.62 1.00 0.91 0.43 0.68 0.85 0.78 0.45 0.62Mexico 0.23 0.41 0.14 0.27 0.21 0.44 0.19 0.31 0.24 0.49 0.16 0.33 0.35 0.56 0.19 0.38New Zealand 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.05Norway 0.47 0.44 0.15 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.26 0.42 0.41 0.18 0.30 0.60 0.50 0.19 0.35Switzerland 6.24 3.68 3.39 3.53 6.04 3.34 3.61 3.47 5.26 2.72 3.69 3.19 5.01 2.55 4.25 3.37South Korea 0.34 0.96 0.51 0.73 0.41 1.12 0.73 0.92 0.49 1.44 1.02 1.24 0.54 1.68 0.65 1.19Turkey 0.78 0.94 0.54 0.73 0.73 1.01 0.78 0.89 0.86 1.23 0.88 1.06 0.83 1.35 0.86 1.11U.S.A. 4.93 7.32 6.86 7.08 5.71 7.67 6.72 7.19 6.28 7.63 5.60 6.65 5.04 6.82 6.11 6.48Bosnia andHerzegovina – – – – 0.21 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.30 0.14 0.19 0.17Brazil 0.42 0.55 0.13 0.33 0.31 0.46 0.10 0.28 0.30 0.58 0.18 0.39 0.64 0.88 0.18 0.55China 0.74 1.71 1.66 1.68 1.41 2.99 2.26 2.62 1.42 4.27 3.65 3.97 1.96 6.16 4.99 5.60Hong Kong 0.57 0.88 0.34 0.60 0.70 0.88 0.34 0.61 0.52 0.83 0.21 0.53 0.41 0.81 0.15 0.50India 0.17 0.38 0.24 0.30 0.22 0.48 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.67 0.34 0.51 0.59 0.96 0.43 0.71Iran 0.32 0.30 0.03 0.16 0.37 0.30 0.02 0.16 0.37 0.27 0.02 0.14 0.34 0.25 0.01 0.13Croatia 0.98 0.51 0.34 0.42 1.26 0.62 0.50 0.56 1.35 0.66 0.65 0.65 1.34 0.63 0.61 0.62Malaysia 0.13 0.35 0.31 0.33 0.13 0.37 0.62 0.50 0.25 0.43 0.33 0.38 0.28 0.42 0.25 0.34RussianFederation 0.92 1.03 0.29 0.64 1.45 1.35 0.28 0.81 2.08 1.95 0.27 1.13 2.65 2.22 0.31 1.30Saudi Arabia 0.27 0.17 0.01 0.09 0.25 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.36 0.26 0.01 0.14 0.47 0.22 0.02 0.12Serbia – – – – – – – – 0.17 0.16 0.05 0.11 0.53 0.32 0.22 0.27Singapore 0.28 0.54 0.20 0.37 0.29 0.61 0.27 0.44 0.27 0.75 0.17 0.47 0.32 0.72 0.13 0.43South Africa 0.38 0.41 0.07 0.23 0.47 0.50 0.07 0.28 0.56 0.59 0.10 0.35 0.53 0.57 0.10 0.34Taiwan 0.37 0.90 0.94 0.92 0.31 0.84 0.82 0.83 0.33 0.78 0.70 0.74 0.23 0.70 0.63 0.66Thailand 0.20 0.31 0.26 0.28 0.15 0.35 0.28 0.32 0.15 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.18 0.48 0.41 0.45Ukraine 0.29 0.32 0.12 0.22 0.41 0.43 0.17 0.30 0.55 0.54 0.20 0.37 0.72 0.62 0.21 0.42United Arab Emirates 0.22 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.32 0.23 0.01 0.12 0.34 0.24 0.03 0.14 0.52 0.31 0.02 0.17Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: OeNB/WIFO.1 The single export weight measures for the 2007 to 2009 period given in table A3 do not match the respective figures in table A2 as the figures in table A3 do not include the share of exports to the

rest of the world because it is not possible to calculate double weights for the latter.

revision of price/cost competitiveness indicators for...

Documents